Single-judge court dismissed an application filed by Dr. M.R. Panda. The petitioner did not appear despite revised call. The court held the prayer did not deserve grant at this stage and disposed of the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OJC No. 3996 of 1993
06. 10.08.2016 No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even on revised
call.
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. M.R.Panda and on perus
al of the record, we are of the opinion that the prayer made in this petition does not deserve
to be granted in writ jurisdiction at this stage.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
........
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
....
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
dm
-2-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer in the writ petition deserves to be granted.
Dr. M.R. Panda
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court